Quote from: Rincewind1;515101Was the original GNS as terrible as Edward's take on it?

With that meaning the "Threefold Model"? Yes. The Adriana Lima pictures for those who enjoy mental onanism.

Quote from: RandallS;515106You may be right here and as I just implied in another post designing around the needs of "organized play" can be a huge turn-off for player who do not like organized play and prefer GM-designed "home" campaigns. This is even more true if the rules are being changed from month to month based on what is seen in "organized play."

The question really is - is there really that much need for special rules designed for organized play? And would that not rather be served as a form of "official" house rules for tournament play, rather then shoehorning the basic model into tournament play?

Quote from: Reckall;515107With that meaning the "Threefold Model"? Yes. The Adriana Lima pictures for those who enjoy mental onanism.

Bookmarked, but I don't think there'll be anything mental about my future enjoyment of these.

Quote from: Reckall;515077Hmm, dunno. The Black Death of the XIV Century pre-dated the plague of 1666, but I don't think that those living in the latter era would have been happy to return to the former.

Translation: the agonies of the latter days were not necessarily worse than the former days. Both were/are thoroughly unpleasant. The agony's cause is the same, just the details changed. (The macabre analogy = black plague:gamer confusion over GNS ideas)

Quote from: Dog Quixote;515096It's as if there's a certain subset of gamers that want to view the rules like computer code, they either function or they don't, as if there's a certain comfort in that.  It's certainly necessary for optimization discussion.  What's  the point of coming up with a killer build and posting it on the net go get respect from a community, if you don't have some kind of supposed objectivity against which to measure things.  (And I don't say this to denigrate char-op completely, I've found in the past that there's something addictive about it, in a puzzle solving manner, but in many ways it's almost a separate hobby.  You end up making characters as examples of elegant design or synergies that you have no interest in actually playing).

So good it's worth repeating.

There's the game of roleplaying and the game of optimization. Conflating the two into RPGs does neither any service.

And objectivity is an overrated shibboleth. Strict empiricism upon dynamic human interaction is a fool's errand.

Quote from: Rincewind1;515101Was the original GNS as terrible as Edward's take on it?

Why don't you decide that yourself.  The earlier GDS Threefold model is described here.  But in many ways, I think this even earlier version, which described the three points of the triangle as "Interactive Storytelling", "I[n ]C[haracter] Experience", and "Problem Solving" was even better because it's clear plain English.  

The primary and most valuable take-away that most people really get from these models is that different people play with different goals.  The problem that all of the models that attempt to list a finite number of styles suffer from is that they tend to be incomplete and encourage people to force styles that don't really fit into one of the existing categories.  

One of the reasons why I prefer Robin Laws' list of player types (see my signature lines) over Glenn Blacow's original list from 1980 (and both of these over the three axis models) is that it includes some important styles that would otherwise get shoehorned into a category where they don't really fit.  Even then, I think both of these models suffer from missing some important distinctions.

Just to be clear without being boring, I'll give a synthetic example of how I approach my games:

At the start of a new campaign I put down the overall situation: entities involved (allies, enemies, neutrals... these can be from NPCs to cults/kingdoms), their aims, what do they know, and what's "out there" (the One Ring, the Covenant Ark, the Big Whatever). Then, usually between session but sometimes on the fly, I decide what their next step will be. These entities can be oblivious of the PCs, become aware of them, or even stumble into them and chase/help them. The plot flows and changes accordingly.

This could be called "emulationism". Except that, once you "zoom in" from the overall situation to the specific happenings, the DM has more "granularity" to play with. To quote Hari Seldon, only broad events can be predicted, on a small scale the unpredictable can still happen. So, the "Black Knightette" sent by the baddie can become the Paladin's lost sister - you know, just for drama. Or, by looking at the overall plot so far, I can see that some overarching themes are emerging all by themselves - let's say "deception". So I can decide on the fly that the "Horrid Shade" waiting in the forest becomes the "Nice Old Woman" - who is the Horrid Shade anyway. Or that, given the current dramatic situation, not using deception for once underlines even better the nature of a place, of or an NPC.

So, this is "storytelling" uh? Sure, except for two things: what happens next not only is in the lap of the gods (and of the players), but unavoidably flows back to the "emulationist" part ("Holy shit, that paladin cleaved his sister in half without blinking! Better to think up something more suitable for a psychopath!" "Have you heard, constable? That nice old woman was an Horrid Shade! Round up all the nice old women in the Kingdom and interrogate them!" ----> the real nice old woman with the vital info is now deep in jail, so the PCs must think about this new situation (and maybe realize that blare around their accomplishments is not smart if the king is half-mad).

AND it flows down to the "challenge part, too", which starts as "fair", but then, as the game progresses, is subject to all kind of complexities, flowing from simulationism to DM "fiat" based on his overall judgement of what went on ("Geeee... sorry, but when a party manages to be defeated by every single enemy in the adventure, you can't really whine if in the final showdown you meet them all.) Which, in turn, flows back to the overall situation  ("They aced... WHO? And... All of them???!!!! Mobilize at once GORGORRA THE DRAGON!!!)

And the above examples are even more "rationalized" than what actually happens in my games - since while DMing I now fluidly move in and out the various aspects of the game without even bothering to consider to "what part of the three-brained pie" they belong.

Then some dude comes along and says that to make good Italian pasta you need tomatoes, oil and salt - choose one ingredient! And people actually listen to him! And flamewars are started!

Then another dude comes along and says that Italian pasta is a shitty dish for brain damaged, and that tomatoes should be used along with other European vegetables (tomatoes are fruits native to South America) according to the "dining agenda" of a group where there is not the evil "chef" and his "cooking fiat", but a lot of cooks around the same broth. And he starts a cult! And good cuisine based on centuries old traditions (Tomatoes & Potatoes 4E) goes to the shitter.

So, do what you want, but I still like more my games. And my plague-free life. And my pasta.

I both see a certain amount of my style in your post, and coincidentally, eat pasta right now.

Quote from: Reckall;515226Then some dude comes along and says that to make good Italian pasta you need tomatoes, oil and salt - choose one ingredient! And people actually listen to him! And flamewars are started!

While I think it's wrong to claim that the best way to make pasta is to pick only one of those three possible ingredients, it's possible to make pasta without one or more (or even all) of those ingredients and knowing that you are feeding people who want to limit or avoid one or more of those ingredients can help you make a pasta dish that they'll enjoy eating.  That's where those models are actually useful.  

For example, you mention an example of the "Black Knightette" sent by the baddie being the Paladin's lost sister.  I value verisimilitude as a player.  In moderation, having the random NPC having a backstory with a PC to add some drama doesn't conflict with my desire for verisimilitude because it's plausible that such things happen.  But at some point, such coincidences become predictable and can damage verisimilitude.  Knowing that I care about verisimilitude should let the GM know that they need to go light enough on the drama that it doesn't become predictable (like, sadly, many movies and TV shows are) just like knowing that a person has high blood pressure means that you need to go light on the salt when you make pasta for them.  

As another example, I don't really care all that much about the story content of the game.  If the players spend a session shopping or bantering in character, that doesn't bother me and I can actually enjoy sessions where nothing much happens.  A GM who assumes that all of their players want to cut to the drama will often try to force what they consider the boring parts along to keep the game moving, but that can actually spoil something I enjoy.  Knowing that I don't care all that much about the drama should let the GM know that maybe it's fine if the players spend the session shopping or bantering in character and they don't need to throw in some combat encounters or NPCs to force things to move along.  

Many GMs naturally pick up on these things because they talk to their players and try to please them, but not all do.  Even otherwise good GMs who know their players well can have blind spots.  For example, one of the GMs in my group didn't like his characters dying so he'd essentially give all of the PCs in his game script immunity -- even when they didn't want it because it would damage verisimilitude.  I'd rather have my character die to preserve verisimilitude than have my character survive in an implausible way that destroys my suspension of disbelief.  

And, of course,  to again quote Ryan Dancey from a thread on the Pyramid message board where he talked about why RPGs fail and succeed, based on surveys that WotC did before 3e:

"Most play groups are comprised of people who group by geography, not by style preference.  They cluster due to a mobility factor - no driver's licese (12-15 year olds), or no car (college students).  Most groups we've examined are of mixed player types."

As such, I think the biggest problem with these theories and the "pick only one" mentality (actually encourage in Forge theory via the concept of "coherence") that you are complaining about is that the real skill for a good GM is to balance, particularly with a group of mixed preferences and ideals.  That's the main reason why I think Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering is perhaps the most practical theory treatment with respect to play styles (see my signature here).  The focus of his book is on making everyone happy in a game with players who have different reasons for playing.

Quote from: Reckall;515226So, do what you want, but I still like more my games. And my plague-free life. And my pasta.

But will you eat literally anything on your pasta?  Will you be happy if I dump in the whole salt shaker into the sauce, give you a bowl of tomato paste soup with a few bits of pasta in it, or have it all floating in olive oil?  Even if you disagree with the idea that good pasta should have only one of those ingredients, isn't there value in understanding what the possible ingredients are, which your players like best or don't really like at all, and how they work with or against each other to create a good pasta dish?

Quote from: Reckall;515086Sure: you fumbled two consecutive comprehension rolls.

Your answer of "I'm ignorant, unclear, and stupid" has been accepted. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from: John Morrow;515208One of the reasons why I prefer Robin Laws' list of player types (see my signature lines) over Glenn Blacow's original list from 1980 (and both of these over the three axis models) is that it includes some important styles that would otherwise get shoehorned into a category where they don't really fit.  Even then, I think both of these models suffer from missing some important distinctions.

One of the important things to understand, however, is that you're comparing two disparate bodies of theory: GDS describes the broad criteria preferences used by the GM to make individual decisions. Laws and Blacow are describing why players enjoy playing RPGs; or, more broadly, "why they play".

Although there is some relationship between these two bodies of theory -- for example, storyteller players are probably going to generally prefer GMs who lean towards the dramatist wing of the GDS -- it's mostly tangential. And quite a few "obvious" relationships actually don't pan out in actual practice. (For example, it's tempting to say that powergamers want a GM that leans towards the gamist wing of the GDS. And sometimes that's true. But I've found that quite a few powergamers actually want a simulationist GM because they view the game world as part of the system they're winning; they don't want the GM to make decisions in order to specifically challenge them.)

Many of the problems with the GNS actually derive directly from trying to use the Threefold Model to describe why players enjoy playing RPGs. GDS describes a technique: Edwards treats the technique as if it were the goal. This not only doesn't match the observed experience of most people, it also badly warps the model. It leads directly to the "you are only allowed to use one ingredient for this pasta!" nonsense that Reckall ignorantly ascribes to the GDS (when that was, in fact, the exact opposite of what the GDS said).

With all that being said, I do think the Threefold lacks one significant element (that many people, including myself, argued for back in the early days of the theory on rec.games.frp.advocacy): Decisions that are made for social reasons.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515314One of the important things to understand, however, is that you're comparing two disparate bodies of theory: GDS describes the broad criteria preferences used by the GM to make individual decisions. Laws and Blacow are describing why players enjoy playing RPGs; or, more broadly, "why they play".

In practice, I think there is substantial overlap between the two such that the distinction isn't all that important.  The discussions that led to the GDS on rec.games.frp.advocacy (I was a participant there, too) largely revolved around players playing from an IC or Deep-IC (to use the pre-"Immersion" term) stance trying to explain to David Berkman why drama-oriented resolution wasn't satisfactory to them.  In other words, the reason why the considerations the GM made when resolving things in the game mattered was specifically because of how the players would perceive them and whether they'd like them or not.  Yes, the perspective is a bit different, but I think the issues being addressed are largely the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515314(For example, it's tempting to say that powergamers want a GM that leans towards the gamist wing of the GDS. And sometimes that's true. But I've found that quite a few powergamers actually want a simulationist GM because they view the game world as part of the system they're winning; they don't want the GM to make decisions in order to specifically challenge them.)

Trying to fit Powergamers into any of the GDS categories is an example of trying to fit something into a category that doesn't really fit.  Laws does an excellent job of splitting them out, as do some of the other models.  Buttkickers also aren't exactly Powergamers, so treating them like Powergamers is a problem.  It's also a problem treating both as Munchkins.

What happened with both the GDS and GNS is that the advocates largely came from one or two perspectives and didn't really get the third, so they used it as a dumping ground for anything that they thought was bad role-playing.  Thus Powergamers were generally thought of as Gamists in the GDS (much to the annoyance of people like Brian Gleichman) while they were thought of as Simulationists in the GNS, because Simulationism was the black-sheep category in the GNS.  

And that, in a nutshell, is why I think both annoyed a lot of people.  The GDS also had a pretty nasty backlash on the other rec.games.frp.* groups at the time.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515314With all that being said, I do think the Threefold lacks one significant element (that many people, including myself, argued for back in the early days of the theory on rec.games.frp.advocacy): Decisions that are made for social reasons.

I was also an advocate of the Social category.  But I think what Robin Laws demonstrated (and Hunter Logan took a stab at this, too, as did Aaron Allston) is that there are more than just 3 or 4 considerations that go into how things are resolved in an RPG.  And trying to frame those other considerations into just 3 or 4 categories is doomed to fail.

(In GDS terms, I prefer a GM to run a Simulationist game and prefer to run that way.  But I always had some interest in tactical combat so considered myself as a bit of a Gamist.  But I'm not really a Gamist in the same sense that Brian Gleichman and other were, in wanting to be challenged as a player by puzzles in the game.  What I actually want is what Robin Laws calls "Butt-Kicking" -- see my signature here -- which is something different than the challenge-oriented Gamism definition of the GDS.  I want to play competent characters than can kick butt, not novices who work their way up to conquerers through their skill at solving problems.  In fact, I playtested a Goodman Games convention adventure and was the first whose character died because paranoid 10-foot pole Gamist problem solving really isn't my thing.)

Quote from: John Morrow;515332The discussions that led to the GDS on rec.games.frp.advocacy (I was a participant there, too) largely revolved around players playing from an IC or Deep-IC (to use the pre-"Immersion" term) stance trying to explain to David Berkman why drama-oriented resolution wasn't satisfactory to them.

The important thing to understand, though, is that the simulationist GM may have absolutely no personal interest in immersion whatsoever. And simulationist decisions may also be conducive to completely non-immersionist styles of play.

QuoteTrying to fit Powergamers into any of the GDS categories is an example of trying to fit something into a category that doesn't really fit.

Trying to fit Laws' concept of "powergamer" into any model of GM interests and/or criteria in decision-making is going to fail, because the idea of any GM being interested in making "his character bigger, tougher, buffer, and richer" is preposterous. GMs don't have characters.

(You might get a bit more mileage out of a GM wanting to find "quirks and breakpoints he can exploit to get large benefits at comparatively low costs", but it's really only going to meaningful in games like Rune or a really over-zealous interpretation of D&D 4E.)

This, ultimately, is my point: GMs and players do two different things at the game table. Trying to find a unified theory of either (a) their criteria/method for decision-making or (b) the reasons why they enjoy playing RPGs is, therefore, folly. (Trying to unify things even further by equating A with B is an even bigger folly.)

To use Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering as an example: He spends almost the entire books talking about what players want and why they play the game (either defining his theoretical breakdown or using that breakdown to analyze rule systems, campaign structures, adventure design, and so forth).

His total analysis of what GMs want and why they play the game? "You know whether you're having a good time or not."

QuoteRobin Laws demonstrated (and Hunter Logan took a stab at this, too, as did Aaron Allston) is that there are more than just 3 or 4 considerations that go into how things are resolved in an RPG.

I'd be interesting in reading some of that. Notably, however, the only thing Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering says about GM decision-making in action resolution is that you need to "ask yourself what you can do that would please either the largest number of players or the most obviously unsatisfied player".

In short, the main thrust of Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering is to psychoanalyze your players and then provide whatever emotional kick you've concluded they want. (He even includes a little table for doing it.) Which is certainly a viable approach, but really just cranks up the "social" wing of Fourfold theory to a high level.

(This emphasis on "make whatever decision will make them happy" results in a large portion of Laws' text being devoted to telling you to ignore what the players actually want in favor of providing the emotional kick you think they want. Or maybe that they secretly want and are just fooling themselves about. Laws is a little vague on this point.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515342The important thing to understand, though, is that the simulationist GM may have absolutely no personal interest in immersion whatsoever. And simulationist decisions may also be conducive to completely non-immersionist styles of play.

Correct, but a GM running a (GDS) Simulationist game who is oblivious or indifferent to why their players want or don't want a Simulationist game could do things that make their players very unhappy.  In fact, I see the whole point of discussing style and resolution considerations is to understand why the GM and players enjoy or don't enjoy the games they are playing in.  

Maybe part of my perspective comes from the fact that I think of myself primarily as a player, not a GM, but there were plenty of people (including Mary Kuhner, John Kim, John Snead, and myself) whose arguments were from the player's rather than GM's perspective.  People explaining why they wouldn't enjoy being a player in Theatrix was the core of the discussion that led to the world-based vs. story-based dichotomy that became the GDS.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515342Trying to fit Laws' concept of "powergamer" into any model of GM interests and/or criteria in decision-making is going to fail, because the idea of any GM being interested in making "his character bigger, tougher, buffer, and richer" is preposterous. GMs don't have characters.

I don't think the GDS defines GM interests.  I think it defines resolution considerations, which can relate to player, GM, or even rules.  Specifically, Simulationism is the absence of metagame considerations.  Gamism is the metagame consideration of providing a fair challenge to the players.  Dramatism is the metagame consideration of providing a good story to the players.  The problem is that there are plenty of other metagame considerations that can also be in play.

The reason why Powergaming doesn't fit into that model is that the metagaming concerns of a Powergamer are not really about either being challenged or being part of a good story or having no metagame concerns. If a player has metagame concerns that are not about challenge or story, there is no way in the GDS to define how a GM might make decisions to cater to that concern.  It also doesn't do a very good job of capturing the fact that those concerns can change based on the when they take place in the game or specific situations.  Almost all game set-up has a metagame component was GMs deliberately create settings and situations prone to produce interesting adventures and players purposely select characters prone to go on adventures and survive them.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515342This, ultimately, is my point: GMs and players do two different things at the game table. Trying to find a unified theory of either (a) their criteria/method for decision-making or (b) the reasons why they enjoy playing RPGs is, therefore, folly. (Trying to unify things even further by equating A with B is an even bigger folly.)

I think that detaching what the GM does from the concerns of the player has little benefit.  Even though I was one of the people who argued that Berkman's advice to make decisions based on what would create the best story was worthless to me as a GM, most of the arguments being made by Mary Kuhner, John Kim, Sarah Khan, John Snead, myself, and others were largely from the perspective of why players would or would not enjoy a GM making decisions using various criteria.  And the whole point of game theory, for me, is to understand why players or the GM aren't enjoying themselves and to help the GM and players figure out how to fix it or if it can be fixed.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515342To use Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering as an example: He spends almost the entire books talking about what players want and why they play the game (either defining his theoretical breakdown or using that breakdown to analyze rule systems, campaign structures, adventure design, and so forth).

His total analysis of what GMs want and why they play the game? "You know whether you're having a good time or not."

Because his assumption, an assumption I share, is that the GM has at least some responsibility to please their players, the GM has the greatest control over how much everyone enjoys the game, and unhappy players make for a bad game for everyone.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515342I'd be interesting in reading some of that. Notably, however, the only thing Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering says about GM decision-making in action resolution is that you need to "ask yourself what you can do that would please either the largest number of players or the most obviously unsatisfied player".

And that ultimately boils down to making decisions based on the sort of metagame concerns (or absence of metagame concerns) that appeal to that player.  Much of what's left is about whether the players or GM know what they want to have happen or want to be surprised by dice and rules outside of their control, the former being the source of all sorts of narrative bypass rules and techniques that let the players or GM simply decide what happens by fiat rather than using dice rolls.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515342In short, the main thrust of Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering is to psychoanalyze your players and then provide whatever emotional kick you've concluded they want. (He even includes a little table for doing it.) Which is certainly a viable approach, but really just cranks up the "social" wing of Fourfold theory to a high level.

That's not really how I interpreted the Social wing.  I interpreted more along the lines of Mary Kuhner's stories about how there were certain topics she wasn't comfortable dealing with because they hit too close to home for her or the proverbial stories of the GM playing favorites with his girlfriend who is playing in the game because she's his girlfriend.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515342(This emphasis on "make whatever decision will make them happy" results in a large portion of Laws' text being devoted to telling you to ignore what the players actually want in favor of providing the emotional kick you think they want. Or maybe that they secretly want and are just fooling themselves about. Laws is a little vague on this point.)

That's not how I interpreted it, though there is certainly quite a lot of that kind of mindset in GMing advice, so maybe I was just ignoring it.  I honestly see all of these models circling around the same set of issues in slightly different terms and at different levels of focus.

Quote from: Reckall;515086Sure: you fumbled two consecutive comprehension rolls.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515314Your answer of...

Thank you for your kind words, but more than an answer it was underlining the obvious

Quote from: John Morrow;515350I think that detaching what the GM does from the concerns of the player has little benefit.

Ah. Like Laws you're of the "GMs are a service industry" school of thought. (Or, less charitably, the "GMs are the players' bitch" school of thought.)

QuoteAnd the whole point of game theory, for me, is to understand why players or the GM aren't enjoying themselves and to help the GM and players figure out how to fix it or if it can be fixed.

Sure. But the way you do that isn't to pretend that GMs are ascetic monks that derive pleasure only from pleasing others. Maybe that's true for some of them, but I'm willing to bet hard currency that it's not true for the vast majority of them.

GMs, like players, have their own interests and passions and preferences. Putting together a successful group is about figuring out successful compromises between those interests, passions, and preferences. But you can't do that if you start with the premise that one set of interests, passions, and preferences is irrelevant.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515372Ah. Like Laws you're of the "GMs are a service industry" school of thought. (Or, less charitably, the "GMs are the players' bitch" school of thought.)

While I think there is much truth to that from my perspective (it's the reason why I GM -- I'd much rather be a player and don't need to run a game to engage in either system design or world building, the GMish things I do enjoy), I think it's as much of a problem for the players to believe the GM is their bitch as it is for the GM to believe the players are their bitch.  Isn't it as much of a problem if the players aren't enjoying themselves as it is for the GM to not be enjoying themselves?  Isn't the alternative the "I am the gamemaster. You are my pawns." school of thought?

In other words, I think the statement that, "I think that detaching what the GM does from the concerns of the player has little benefit," is just as true stated, "I think that detaching what the players do from the concerns of the GM has little benefit."  Game dysfunction seems to result from players and GMs doing things that others at the table don't like, so fixing game dysfunction requires consideration of all of the participants of the table and compromise between everyone.

At that point, you've got a few choices.  The party or parties that are not having fun can leave the game.  The party or parties that are making the others unhappy can leave the game, either voluntarily or involuntarily.  Or everyone can work toward a compromise.  

That game theory and solving dysfunction is generally directed toward the GM is that the GM is often the most experienced and knowledgeable participant in the game, that the GM is generally thinking about the big picture, and that the traditional GM is the person in control of how the game flows, thus the GM generally has the most knowledge and power to fix problems with "their" game.  But one could certainly also direct advice to players, too.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515372Sure. But the way you do that isn't to pretend that GMs are ascetic monks that derive pleasure only from pleasing others. Maybe that's true for some of them, but I'm willing to bet hard currency that it's not true for the vast majority of them.

GMs, like players, have their own interests and passions and preferences. Putting together a successful group is about figuring out successful compromises between those interests, passions, and preferences. But you can't do that if you start with the premise that one set of interests, passions, and preferences is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but my point is that I don't think any of those models, including the GDS, really addresses GM interests, passions, and preferences.  Determining what happens next on the basis of "Gamism", "Dramatism", or "Simulation" are largely means to an end and not ends themselves.  Just as knowing that a player prefers that the GM make decisions on a "Simulationist" basis doesn't necessarily tell you that a player is character "Immersive" (since, as you've already pointed out -- there are other reasons why a player might want "Simulationist" resolution), knowing that a GM is making decisions for "Dramatist" reasons doesn't tell me much about the GM's motivations.  They could be trying to please the players by keeping the game interesting or they could be a frustrated novelist railroading their players through their story.

Since I generally do GM to please the players, I'm curious.  Why do GMs GM?  What do you get out of it?  And how to players please the GM?

I'd love to see someone take a stab at defining why GMs play and what GMs expect to get out of the game.  I know there is much more to it than making the players happy, and while I know there are certainly examples of game dysfunction caused by the GM either forcing what they want on players who don't want it, there are also plenty of examples of players who don't give GMs what they expect or want.  Ultimately, it should all be tied together such that players could know what they need to do to make their GM happy and the GM needs to know what they need to do to keep their players happy so that everyone can decide whether they can compromise or that trying to game together without compromise is doomed to fail.  Because, again, I think the ultimate value and objective of game style theory should be to diagnose and fix (or at last improve) dysfunctional games.